Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota
2015 Minn. LEXIS 426
Minn.2015Background
- Harvey Ray Dupey pleaded guilty to fifth-degree controlled-substance possession; the district court stayed adjudication under Minn. Stat. § 152.18, subd. 1, and placed him on probation on Feb. 27, 2009.
- On May 24, 2011, Dupey admitted violating probation; the court revoked the stay, entered a judgment of conviction, and imposed a 13-month executed sentence.
- Dupey filed a postconviction petition on May 23, 2013, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea based on alleged problems with the crime lab testing and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The postconviction court denied the petition as untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(1); the court of appeals affirmed, holding a stay of adjudication triggers the 2-year limitations period.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a stay of adjudication constitutes a "judgment of conviction or sentence" that starts the 2-year postconviction limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a stay of adjudication under Minn. Stat. § 152.18, subd. 1, trigger the 2-year statute of limitations for postconviction petitions under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(1)? | Dupey: Time runs from revocation/entry of judgment; his petition (filed within 2 years of revocation) is timely. | State: Statute is ambiguous as to stays; court should treat a stay as a "sentence" triggering the limitations period. | The Court held a § 152.18 stay is neither a "judgment of conviction" nor a "sentence" for § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(1); the limitations period began when the stay was revoked and judgment/sentence entered, so Dupey’s petition was timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of J.J.P., 831 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 2013) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo and principal rules of construction)
- Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 813 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 2012) (statutory language is ambiguous only if it admits more than one reasonable interpretation)
- Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010) (courts must not add words omitted by the legislature; may look beyond text if ambiguity exists)
- State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 2013) (use legislative definitions or ordinary meaning when no statutory definition exists)
- State v. Martinez-Mendoza, 804 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2011) (distinguishes conviction from judgment of conviction; discusses when a plea is recorded)